Hanilgalbat

Hanilgalbat was a kingdom in northern Syria, it was also used as a geographical term for the area between the Khabur and Euphrates rivers in Neo-Assyrian times.

No native sources for the history of Hanilgalbat have been found so far. The account is mainly based on Assyrian official documents, some private correspondence, and Hittite and Egyptian sources. This is bound to give a biased view.

Hanilgalbat, Mitanni and Hurri

The definition and history of Hanilgalbat is beset by a lack of differentiation between linguistic, ethnic and political groups.

Hittite annals mention a people called "Hurri", located in north-eastern Syria. The annals of the Hittite king Hattusilis I, unfortunately only known from later copies, mentions an enemy from the city (determinative) of "Hurri". This determinative might have been used instead of KUR, country. Probably, the original form of the name was "Hurla". The Akkadian version of the text gives "Hurri" as Hanilgalbat, which is also the name the Assyrians used. The term "Mitanni" is only used at the very end of the Middle Assyrian area, after the end of Hanilgalbat as a political entity.

Egyptian sources apply the term Mitanni to a political entity that resisted their domination of northern Syria. The name "Mitanni" is first found in the "memoirs" of the Syrian wars (ca. 1480) of Amememhet at the time of Amenhotep I (1517 - 1496 BC) and maybe his two successors.

To complicate matters, a Hurrite language has been reconstructed from rather scarce sources. It is believed to belong to the Indo-European language family.

Bearers of names in this language are attested in wide areas of Syria and the northern Levant that are clearly outside the area of the political entity known as Hanilgalbat. There is no indication that these persons felt as members of a Hurrite people or owed allegiance to the political entity of Hanilgalbat, although the term "Auslandshurriter" (Hurrian expatriats) has been used by some German authors. In the 14th century BC there were numerous city-states in northern Syria and Palestine ruled by persons with names in the Hurrian language. If this can be taken to mean that the population of these states was Hurrian as well, then it is possible that these entities were a part of a larger political entity with a shared Hurrian identity. This is often assumed, but without a critical examination of the sources.

Therefore, this entry is restricted to the political entity called Hanilgalbat by its Assyrian enemies.

Extent of the kingdom

Hanilgalbar was located in Northern Syria, extending from modern Kirkuk and the river Tigris in the east to Aleppo and Nuhashne in the west. Its centre was in the Khabur valley, with two capitals: Taidu, and Washshukanni, which is called Ushshukana in the Assyrian sources.

History

As early as Akkadian times, Hurrites are known to have lived east of the river Tigris on the northern rim of Mesopotamia and in the valley of the Khabur. Cuneiform texts from Mari name rulers of city-states in upper Mesopotamia with both Amurru und Hurrian names. Hurrian-named rulers are attested for Urshum and Hashshum, for example. Tablets from Alalakh (layer VII, from the later part of the old-Babylonian period) mention people with Hurrian names at the mouth of the Orontes. There is no evidence for any invasion from the North-east. Generally, these onomastic sources have been taken as evidence for a Hurrian expansion to the South and the West.

A Hittite fragment, probably from the time of Mursilis I, mentions a King of the Hurrians (LUGAL ErÍn.MESH Hurri). This terminology was last used for King Tushratta of Hanilgalbat in a letter in the Amarna archives. This text can be taken as evidence for the existence of a Hurrian state, as opposed to a purely linguistic assignation of enemy people.

It is believed that the arrival of a confederation of Hurrian tribes following the collapse of Babylon (due to the Hittite sack and the Kassite invasion) led to the creation of the kingdom of Hanilgalbat.

Hanilgalbat was not destined to hold its lands uncontested. One on hand, the territory between the upper Euphrates and the Tigris had been the target of Hittite expansion since the time of Hattusilis I. On the other, following the defeat of the Hyksos, Egyptian rulers tried to regain the territories they had held intermittently in northern Syria since perhaps as early as the Old Kingdom.

Saushtatar

Saushtatar, king of Hanilgalbat sacked Ashur sometime in the 15th century and took the silver and golden doors of the Royal palace to Washshukanni. This is known from a Hittite document, the Shuppililiuma-Shattiwazza treaty. There are no Assyrian sources describing this event. Kühne thinks that Saushtatar's campaign fell into the reign of Assur-nadin-ahhe I, whom he replaced by Enlil-Nasir II (1430-1425). The names of these kings are known from the Assyrian list of kings. While this interpretation is plausible, it lacks any independent corroboration. This would put Saushtatar's assumption of the throne of Hanilgalbat around 1400 BC.

unknown rulers

After the sack of Ashur, Assyria paid tribute to Hanilgalbat up to the time of Assur-uballit I. The rise of the Hittites and dynastic conflicts weakened Hanilgalbat, which led to its eventual submission to a resurgent Assyria.

Already under Ahmose, Egypt tried to gain territory in Palestine, Ahmose led some campaigns in the southern Levant. Thutmose I (1493-1481) led campaigns in northern Syria as well. At that time, the territory of Hanilgalbat is thought to have included the former Hittite vassals states of Aleppo, Alalakh, Ama'u and Kizzuwatna, the latter located between the Taurus and Amanus mountains (Cilicia). About 1490 BC, Egyptian troops reached Naharina in Hanilgalbat. Thutmose I erected a border stone on the Euphrates.

Partatama

But it was only under the rule of Thutmose III that Egyptian troops were to cross the Euphrates. Thutmose III led wars in Syria in the 33rd year of his rule (1447 BC). When he attacked Qadesh, troops from Naharina in Hanilgalbat went against him. Although the Egyptians crossed the Euphrates and reached a town called Iryn (maybe present day Erin, 20 km northwest of Aleppo, they could not establish any permanent rule there. But the area at the middle Orontes and Phoenicia became part of the Egyptian territory.

Victories over Mitanni are recorded from 1445, Egyptian campaigns in Nuhasse in 1442. Again, this did not lead to permanent territorial gains. Partatama or his son Saushtatar controlled the North Syrian interior up to Nuhasse, and the coastal territories from Kizzuwatna to Mukish in the kingdom of Alalakh at the mouth of the Orontes.

Saushtatar II

Under Amenhotep II Hanilgalbat seems to have re-gained influence in the middle Orontes-valley that had been conquered by Thutmose III. Later, Egypt and Hanilgalbat became allies, King Saushtatar himself was received at the Egyptian court. This culminated in a number of Royal marriages, when the princesses Tatu-hepa and later Gilu-Hepa married Egyptian rulers. Peaceful relations were to continue under Thutmosis IV.

The reason Hanilgalbat sought peace with Egypt may have been trouble at the Western border. A Hittite ruler called Tudhalija conducted campaigns in Kizzuwatna, Arzawa, Isuwa (on the upper Euphrates), Aleppo, and maybe against Hanilgalbat itself. The chronology of the period is confused, as there seem to have been two or even three rulers of the name of Tudhalija, and it is often not clear to which of these the sources refer. Kizzuwatna may have fallen to the Hittites at that time.

Tushratta

At the beginning of the rule of the Hittite King Suppililiumas I, Kizzuwatna under the local ruler Shunashshura had been under Hittite control. It seceded from Hatti, but was re-conquered by Suppililiumas. In what has been called his first Syrian campaign, Suppililiumas then invaded the western part of the Euphrates valley and conquered the Amurru and Nuhashshe in Hanilgalbat.

Hittite annals report that King Tushratta raided beyond the Euphrates, but it is unclear whether this was an attempt to counter the Hittite advance on Kizzuwatna and Nuhashshe or simply a pretext for the second Syrian campaign of king Suppililiumas I, which was directed against Hanilgalbat. Tushratta possibly suspected Hittite intentions on his kingdom, for the Amarna letters include several tablets from Tushratta concerning the marriage of his daughter with Akhenaten, explicitly to solidify an alliance with the Egyptian kingdom (EA 17). However, when Suppiluliumas invaded his kingdom, the Egyptians failed to respond in time -- perhaps because of the sudden death of Akhenaten, and the resulting struggle for control of the Egyptian throne.

Before the Hittite troops reached Washshukanni, Tushratta was killed by his son, and his other son Shattiwazza had fled. Shattiwazza may have gone to Babylon first, but eventually ended up at the court of the Hittite king Suppililiumas who married him to his daughter. A treaty between Suppililiumas of Hatti and Shattiwazza of Mitanni has been preserved and is one of the main sources on this period.

After the Hittite king Suppililiumas had taken Carchemish and the land west of the Euphrates, Hanilgalbat was restricted to the Khabur and Balikh valleys and became more and more dependant of Hatti. Assyria began to infringe on Hanilgalbat as well. Its vassal state of Arrapha in the east was conquered and destroyed by Ashur-uballit I.

Shattiwazza

After the Shuppililiuma-Shattiwazza treaty, Piyashshili, a son of Shuppiluliuma led a Hittite army into Hanilgalbat. According to Hittite sources, Piyashshili and Shattiwazza crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish, then marched against Irridu, already in Hurrite territory. After having reduced Irridu and burned Harran, they continued east towards Washshukanni and maybe conquered the capital Taite as well. At that point, an Assyrian army appeared, but seems to have retreated again. Shattiwazza became king of Hanilgalbat, but must have been quite dependent on his Hittite allies. Some scholars speak of a Hittite puppet kingdom.

Shattuara

The royal inscriptions of Adad-nirari I (c. 1305-1274) relate how King Shattuara of Hanilgalbat rebelled and commited hostile acts against Assyria. How this Shattuara was related to the dynasty of Partatama is unclear. Adad-nirari claims to have captured him and brought him to Ashur, where he took an oath as a vassal. Afterwards, Shattuara was allowed to return to Hanilgalbat, and he paid regular tribute. This must have happened during the reign of Mursilis II, but there is no exact date.

Wasashatta

Despite the Assyrian strength, Shattuara's son Wasashatta rebelled. He sought Hittite help, but as that kingdom was preoccupied with internal struggles, possibly connected with the usurpation of Hattusilis III, who had driven his nephew Urhi-Teshup into exile, the Hittites took Wasashatta's money but did not help, as Adad-nirari's inscriptions gleefully note. The Assyrians conquered the Royal city of Taidu, and took Washshushikannu, Amasakku, Kahat, Shuru, Nabula, Hurra and Shuduhu, as well. They conquered Irridu, destroyed it utterly and sowed a salt-plant over it. The wife, sons and daughters of Wasashatta were taken to Ashur, together with lots of loot. As Wasashatta himself is not mentioned, he must have escaped capture. There are letters of Wasashatta in the Hittite archives. Some scholars think that he became ruler of a reduced Hanilgalbat called Shubria. While Adad-nirari conquered the core of Hanilgalbat between the Balikh and the Khabur, he does not seem to have crossed the Euphrates, and Carchemish remained part of the Hittite kingdom. With his victory over Hanilgalbat, Adad-nirari claimed the title of Great-King (Sharru rabû) in letters to the Hittite rulers, who still did not consider him as an equal.

Shattuara II

During the early years of the reign of Shalmaneser I (1270s-1240s) King Shattuara II of Hanilgalbat, a son or nephew of Wasahatta rebelled against the Assyrian yoke with the help of the Hittites and the nomadic Ahlamu. His army was well prepared, they had occupied all the mountain passes and waterholes, so the Assyrian army suffered from thirst during their advance.

Nevertheless, Shalmanesar won a crushing victory. He claims to have slain 14,400 men, the rest were blinded and carried away. His inscriptions mention the conquest of nine fortified temples, 180 Hurrian cities were "turned into rubble mounds", Shalmanesar "…slaughtered like sheep the armies of the Hittites and the Ahlamu his allies…". The cities from Taidu to Irridu were captured, as well as all of mount Kashiar to Eluhat and the fortresses of Sudu and Harranu to Carchemish on the Euphrates. Another inscription mentions the construction of a temple to Adad in Kahat, a city of Hanilgalbat that must have been occupied as well.

A part of the population was deported and served as cheap labour. Administrative documents mention barley allotted to "uprooted men", deportees from Hanilgalbat. For example, the governor of the city Nahur, Meli-Sah received barley to be distributed to deported persons from Shuduhu "as seed, food for their oxen and for themselves". Hanilgalbat was now ruled by a king (sharru), probably an Assyrian official. Assyrian administrative centres were built. Assyrians maintained not only military and political control, but seem to have dominated the trade as well, no Hurrian names appear in private records of Shalmanesar's time.

Hanilgalbat as an Assyrian Provinve

Under Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243-1207) there were again numerous deportations from Hanilgalbat to Ashur, probably in connection with the construction of a new palace. As the Royal inscriptions mention an invasion of Hanilgalbat by a Hittite king, there may have been a new rebellion or at least native support of a Hittite invasion. The Assyrian towns may have been sacked at this time, as destruction levels have been found in some excavations, which can't be dated with such precision, however.

In the time of Ashur-nirari III the Mushku and other tribes invaded Hanilgalbat and it was lost to Assyrian rule. The Hurrians still held Katmuhu and Paphu.

Neo-Assyrian Hanilgalbat

At the turn of the Millenium, Hanilgalbat is fully aramaized. It is mentioned in inscriptions of Adad-nirari II, Ashurbanipal II and Shalmaneser III. Hanilgalbat is still used as a geographical term, probably as a conscious archaism.

Kings

• (P/B)Artatama I (spelling unclear)
• Saushtatar
• Shuttarna II (son of Artatama I)
• Artashshumara (brother of Tushratta)
• Tushratta
• Shattiwazza, son of Tushratta

--unknown dynastic connection

• Shattuara
• Wasashatta, his son, deposed by Adad-nirari I
• Shattuara II, son or nephew of Wasashatta – defeated by Shalmaneser I

Towns

• Amasakku (location unknown)
• Eluhat
• Harranu, fortress
• Hurra (near Mardin?)
• Irridu (between Carchemish and Harran, maybe Ordi or Tell Bender)
• Kahat (Tell Barri on the Jaghjagh)
• Nabula (Girnavaz near Nusaybin)
• Naharina
• Nahur
• Nuhashshe
• Shuduhu (in the Khabur-area?),
• Shuru (maybe Savur at the northern rim of Tur-'Abdin)
• Sudu, fortress
• Taidu, Royal city, location unknown
• Washshukanni (Tell Fecheriye, Tell Hamukar?)

Excavations

• Tell Fecheriye
• Tell Sabi Abyad

external links

• http://www.sabi-abyad.nl/main.tpl?language=en Dutch excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad

Sources

• Amir Harrak, "Assyria and Hanilgalbat. A historical reconstruction of the bilateral relations from the middle of the 14th to the end of the 12 centuries BC." Studien zur Orientalistik (Hildesheim, Olms 1987).
• Weidner, "Assyrien und Hanilgalbat". Ugaritica 6 (1969).
• C. Kühne, "Politische Szenerie und internationale Beziehungen Vorderasiens um die Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends vor Chr. (zugleich ein Konzept der Kurzchronologie). Mit einer Zeittafel." In: Hans-Jörg Nissen/Johannes Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Orient vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient (Berlin, Reimer 1982), 203-264.
• E. Gaal, "The economic role of Hanilgalbat at the beginning of the Neo-Assyrian expansion." In: Hans-Jörg Nissen/Johannes Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Orient vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient (Berlin, Reimer 1982), 349-354.